Charles Philippe d'Orléans is NOT the duke of Anjou. The only one duke of Anjou is SAR Luis Alfonso de Bourbon.
Jean d'Orléans is the legitim heir of King Louis-Philippe and the Monarchie de Juillet, nothing more.

The heir to the french throne is necessary the elder of all Capetians. And the elder of the Capetians is Luis Alfonso de Bourbon ; Louis XX. All the true legitimists know that.
The Orléans are the younger branch of the Bourbon royal family.
Jean d'Orléans is the number 79 in the line of succession to the french throne.

Yes, the discussion is never-ending because there are two branches of the one dynasty whose supporters fervently believe they have 'right' on their side. Orléanists and Legitimists will never agree because there are two competing lines of descent, one represented by the senior primogeniture Bourbon and the other represented by the senior descendant of the last King of the French. As neither line is likely to die out anytime soon, the argument will continue indefinitely.

On the positive side, it's these sorts of disputes which make dynastic histories and genealogies interesting, and bring them into the present day.

Nico, probably we don't have the same friends, as around me (not among royalists, of course), and in spite of the action of the orleanist and successful magazine Point de Vue, a long time managed by a grand-daughter of an Orléans princess, both princes are known the same way (i.e. little, unfortunately).
Among royalists I would say 50/50 (among the ones who have an opinion), but even when, because of the influence of Charles Maurras, orleanists were 80-90% of the royalists (about WWI to WWII), this had nothing to do with French succession rules, which say without any doubt that the (true) duke of Anjou, Louis de Bourbon, is the legitimate successor to the throne of France.
And about changing French history, well, of course who do it is who try to introduce a new rule in French succession laws, that not only would be new (then, why not) but that would be in contradiction with several previous accessions to the French throne, as well as belongings to dynasts.

It's a pity to see that orleanists always try to change the rules of succession to the throne of France to legitimate the descendants of the Orléans...
It's the same story since the death of the count of Chambord.

The heir to the french throne is necessary the elder of all Capetians. And the elder of the Capetians is Luis Alfonso de Bourbon ; Louis XX. All the true legitimists know that.
The Orléans are the younger branch of the Bourbon royal family.
Jean d'Orléans is the number 79 in the line of succession to the french throne.

So far as I know, the senior Capetian line is that of the Barons of Busset... It is an illegitimate branch but they enjoyed the rank of Cousin of the King (so they where recognized as descents of the House of France)... Hence, if you consider invalid the Treaty of Utrecht (that is the pillar of the European modern order, and was registered by both the Cortes and the Parliaments of France), you can even not consider another little formality (the absence of a legitimate marriage): from this perspective Charles de Bourbon, comte de Busset is the rightful King of France!

I have two question for the "legitimists" (but I think that this denomination is misleading, since the Orléans' claim is to be the heirs of Henri V [who recognized the Orléans as legitimate Heirs as per the traditions and laws of the Monarchy], and not of Louis Philippe):
1) Why the Heir of Don Luis Alfonso, HM King Juan Carlos, as all the other Courts of Europe, recognizes the rights of HRH the Count of Paris? Isn't it a contraddiction?
2) If you consider "bastards" the Bussets, why you consider dynasts the descents of a morganatic marriage (that has the same effects of a mariage secret)?
Thank you for your kind answer.

I am jumping in here as a completely impartial observer -- someone who has a longstanding intellectual interest in this debate, but who doesn't feel an allegiance to one side or the other. I must say that the second question seems like a particularly good one... and it raises a point that I haven't come across before. I would truly appreciate hearing the legitimist argument. V.F.H., are you still here?

1) HM King Juan Carlos doesn't recognize SAR Luis Alfonso like the heir to the throne of France because, for him, Luis Alfonso represents a competitor for the throne of Spain. We don't have to forget that before he became king, Juan Carlos wasn't the legitim heir to the throne of Spain. Before to choose the king, Franco hesitated between Juan Carlos and Alfonso of Bourbon-Dampierre, his cousin and elder of the Capetians (and Luis Alfonso's father). Juan Carlos has never forget that.
2) Legitimists still consider the Bourbon-Busset like "bastards" because they were already bastards in the time when there was a king in France. They can't be considered as legitim heirs today if they weren't yesterday.
And the Bourbon-Busset never claimed anything.

So, according to the King of France the Bussets were bastards. No doubt.
And according to the "legitimist" king of France Alphonse II (Alfonso XIII of Spain) the descendants of his son, Jaime, were non dynastic, because of his unequal marriage (like a secret marriage)... Hence, that line is not entitled of any right to neither the throne of Spain nor that of France.
Consequently, the "legitimist" pretender would be HM Juan Carlos of Spain!

Without wishing to enter the debate on either side, the Spanish Royal Family's internal dynastic marriage rules have no relevance to the succession rules of the throne of France. They are two separate and unrelated issues. There has never been morganatic marriage in France and morganatic marriage never existed in French laws.

I have been there before, don't we all ? And i am not going to argue about it again. But there is one question that has allways intrigued me : Why, oh why, the comte de Chambord never gave an indication about his beliefs in the matter of his own succession ?
( Please don't screem i am not saying that his opinion would have changed anything on one or the other possibility), i am simply i wondering.
-Was it because he thought monarchy was gone for good in France and their was no need of an heir ?
-Was it because he disliked the orléans so much that he did not want to recognise their claim ?
-Was it because he thought the spanish succession was completely clear?

I don't think he considered the Spanish succession clear. You have only to see what really happened in the history: the only real threat to the 3rd Republic were the Orleans... Somewhere in the net you can find some letters and documents written by Louis XVIII and Charles X that are mainly in favour of the Orleans and allude at the possible nullity of the Treaty of Utrecht (pillar of the European order) only in order to threaten the Orleans and keep them at their place.

I'd like to respond to Warren about the marriages of the princes of France. If France law didn't know the morganatic marriage, it was however necessary the royal assent for the marriages of the princes de sang:

There has never been morganatic marriage in France and morganatic marriage never existed in French laws.

Warren, just to make sure that I understand: Are you saying that the concept of morganatic marriage doesn't exist under the laws of the French Republic, or are you saying that the Royal House of France never had a rule against unequal marriages?

The first is quite possible -- but I'm not sure if that's what you mean, because it doesn't seem very relevant to the argument above. It would be odd indeed if the laws of any republic encompassed issues of monarchic succession (such as morganatic marriage), but precisely for that reason those laws are probably neither helpful nor determinative in deciding who is the pretender to the throne.

On the other hand, the second possibility also seems strange. To think that La Maison Royale de France did not have a rule against unequal marriages... oufff! That would be a surprise indeed. If it were true, any French Dauphin could have married a lowly baroness or even a commoner and retained his place in the succession. That doesn't sound right. However, I don't have first-hand knowledge of the subject and will happily defer to you.

But I also have a feeling that I'm missing something. Can you please clarify?

I think we are talking about different things. The concept of morganatic marriage is Germanic in origin (Holy Roman Empire) and is not the same as an unequal or unapproved marriage. I don't need to go into the definitions here but morganatic marriage did not exist in royal France, a legal situation in common with England/Britain.

But does the concept of unequal marriage exist? If so, the descendants of unequal marriages are excluded from the line of Succession or not?I know that the late Count of Paris recognised the weddings of some of his sons as unequal...

Paul Theroff's site reported that the late Count of La Marche married Marion Gordon Orr "morganatically, according to Orlèanist house law". If morganatic marriages don't exist, I wonder: 1-which is the status of their son? 2-which are these "Orleanist house law" he quotes?